Cited by

We have stated that “a notice would be meaningless unless it included some reference to the area involved sufficient to give the reader reasonable warning that his interest may be affected.” Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 322, 234 A.2d 523, 526 (1967) (decided under prior law).

“An area is spot zoned when it is singled out for treatment different from that of similar surrounding land which cannot be justified on the bases of health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and which is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 322, 234 A.2d 523, 526 (1967).

Rather, the question to be answered is whether an area has been “singled out for treatment different from that of similar surrounding land which cannot be justified on the bases of health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and which is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 322-23, 234 A.2d 523, 526 (1967), quoted in Treisman v. Town of Bedford, 132 N.H. 54, 60, 563 A.2d 786, 789 (1989).

Although the requirements of a § 2 motion within twenty days and a § 4 appeal within thirty days impose procedural limitations on such direct challenges to the validity of a zoning enactment, see, e.g., V. M. Stevens, Inc. v. South Hampton, 114 N.H. 118, 316 A.2d 179 (1974) (brought under previous codification of RSA 677:4 as RSA 31:77); Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 234 A.2d 523 (1967) (same), our case law is replete with collateral challenges raised long after the enactment of an ordinan

Spot zoning occurs when an area: “is singled out for treatment different from that of similar surrounding land which cannot be justified on the bases of health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and which is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 322, 234 A.2d 523, 526 (1967).

The notice in R. A. Vachon, Inc. v. City of Concord, 112 N.H. 107, 112, 289 A.2d 646, 649 (1972) (citing Schadlick v. City of Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 234 A.2d 523 (1967)) was also sufficient because it indicated that the proposed zoning ordinance represented a “comprehensive revision” of the existing ordinance.

In Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 322-23, 234 A.2d 523, 526 (1967), this court held that “[a]n area is spot zoned when it is singled out for treatment different from that of similar surrounding land which cannot be justified on the bases of health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and which is not in accordance with a comprehensive

In Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 322, 234 A.2d 523, 526 (1967), we held that a municipality must provide its citizens with reasonable notice that their interests will be affected by the *894 proposed adoption or amendment of a municipal zoning ordinance.

The notice must be reasonably sufficient “to inform the public of the essence and scope of the zoning regulation under consideration.” 1 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 4.14, at 206 (2d ed. 1976); R. A. Vachon & Son, Inc. v. City of Concord, 112 N.H. 107, 289 A.2d 646 (1972); Schadlick v. City of Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 234 A.2d 523 (1967).

With these procedural considerations in mind, we address the issue of whether the superior court erred in concluding that plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof that the board’s decision was “unjust or unreasonable.” RSA 31:78; see Griauzde v. Nashua, 103 N.H. 468, 174 A.2d 432 (1961); Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 234 A.2d 523 (1967).

Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 322, 234 A.2d 523, 526 (1967); Deans v. West, 189 Neb.

RSA 31:78; Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 323, 234 A.2d 523, 527 (1967); Morris v. Postma supra.

Schadlick v. City of Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 234 A.2d 523 (1967).